Peter Singer defends his views on killing disabled babies

Picked this up on the Catholic Social Justice news feed.

I know about Peter Singer . When he first came to teach at Princeton University, members of the disabled community picketed. However, as the article notes, he's a very respected scholar.

Those of us in the disabled community find people like Peter Singer to be very frightening, simply because some of our best friends would have been killed before their lives began. For example, one of my wheelchair tennis friends told me that her parents were told by a doctor that , with her birth defects, a birth certificate wasn't even going to be drawn up. Yet the birth defects did not affect her health , just her appearance. Today she's in her 30's and an accountant with a college degree and a very good job, thank you very much.

Then there are my friends who have spina bifida or CP. Would they all be up for disposal too because they weren't perfect babies? All of them have full time professional jobs and own their own homes.

I make this argument to show how broad generalizations can be wrong and how dangerous it is to make those generalizations. I am not suggesting that only those disabled babies who can achieve certain things deserve to live. I am not willing to make a distinction on the value of human life based on what a person can achieve. No one should have to "earn the right to live". No one should get to decide that a child's IQ or appearance or physical abilities makes him or her unworthy to live.

I am deeply offended by the mere suggestion that a baby with a disability is somehow a disposable member of society. How dare any of us interfere with a life sent into this world by God - on the basis that it doesn't "measure up to" our enlightened standards? These babies cannot speak for themselves, but ask me if my life is worth living with a disability. Would I choose not to live because I am paralyzed? Of course not.

That eliminates the argument that somehow we're doing these poor babies a favor by depriving them of a so-called miserable existence . It is a fallacy that people with disabilities are miserable and unhappy. Many of us live productive and satisfying lives.

But then there is the argument that these babies will be a burden - on their parents, siblings, relatives and society. There are financial considerations. Even if they would choose to live, what right do they have to impose this burden on others? In fact, that's a very short hop to the question:

What right do any of us with disabilities have to live?

Very short hop. If you can hop. Which most of us can't. But those of you who can, take a hop now. And just stand there for a minute and pretend that the social worker who just implied that you don't need services so you can work or the person who just refused to pay you for your professional services because he found out you are in a wheelchair (oops left my checkbook at home)- all of these folks have an ear to the ground that makes them doubt whether we, as people with disabilities, have a right to live equally with others - and then tell me that this doesn't all emanate from a refusal to honor the dignity of every human life.

Because, my friends, it does.